In recent weeks, the conflicts between President Chen Shui-bian (
To be fair, their political stances are not that different -- both parties promote democracy, freedom, Taiwan's independence and sovereignty, and the normalization of the country's national status. But their economic views are diametrically opposed. In 2001, Chen replaced Lee's "no haste, be patient" policy with the "active opening, effective management" policy.
It was the first step toward their breakup, and is the biggest reason they have gone separate ways because the two policies represent different attitudes toward China and the Taiwanese.
Lee is always concerned about national security and economic safety. He is troubled by Beijing's strategy of "using business to promote unification," believing that excessive Taiwanese investment in, and cooperation with, China may broaden the gap between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This will damage Taiwan's economy and the Taiwanese people's income, and will have a negative impact on Taiwan's economic development.
Politically, China's ultimate goal is the annexation of Taiwan, and it seeks to prevent Taiwan from becoming a normal nation. Beijing's political pressure on Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China will also damage the democratic localization forces in Taiwan, turning it into the next Hong Kong -- something that Taiwanese do not want to see. Since Lee is the TSU's spiritual leader, naturally, the party has inherited his China policies.
When the DPP was established in 1986, it was a union of anti-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and anti-dictatorship forces. Their political stance was clear: They sought democracy and freedom, as well as independence and sovereignty for Taiwan.
As the only opposition party at the time of its founding, the DPP quickly won public support. Apart from focusing attention on environmental protection and disadvantaged groups, its economic policies, and particularly its cross-strait business policies, were unclear and divided. Surprisingly, the party's confused understanding of economic policy meant that Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) was elected party chairman. Hsu espoused "going west boldly," and an immediate opening of direct cross-strait links thus came to dominate the DPP's policy direction.
Under the direction of Hsu, the party in 1998 held an internal debate to discuss its China policies, concluding that Taiwan must "strengthen its base and then go west," adding the seeds of unification ideas into the localization party.
As a result, the party's political logic today is neither unambiguously pro-unification nor pro-independence, creating a difficult situation where its policies sway back and forth.
Whether looking from the point of view of the DPP's theoretical logic or the practical situation, localization (or independence and sovereignty) and "boldly going west" (or "active opening") are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, these two policy directions coexist in the party's main discourse, which drives the DPP toward pan-blue camp policies.
Haunted by the ghost of the "go west" policy, the party's administrative team has unconsciously accepted a three-stage discourse: the future of Taiwan lies in the economy; the future of the economy lies in China; cross-strait relations must therefore be the government's primary task.
Since the DPP has a long history of interacting with Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China, corruption has naturally occurred again and again. This has also hindered the development of Taiwan's national sovereignty, delaying the correction of the nation's official name, pro-localization education and the writing of a new constitution.
After six years, the disadvantages of "active opening" are clear for all to see. As China-based Taiwanese businesspeople continue to profit, the people of Taiwan suffer, localization forces fade and the gap between rich and poor rapidly broadens. The government, meanwhile, is losing public support.
Oddly, the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development is slated to take place this month, and the public is calling for the opening of direct links. It is a repetition of 2001's Economic Development Advisory Conference, where the "active opening, effective management" policy was launched. The government has even mentioned "confident opening" this time around.
The DPP has indeed proposed many slogans regarding its China policy, from "boldly going west," "strengthening the base and going west" and "active opening" to the latest "confident opening." It seems that the conflicts between Chen and Lee and between their supporters, will continue to worsen. The problem is that until China recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty, "political independence" and "economic integration" -- that is, "confident opening" and "boldly going west" -- will never be able to coexist.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS